The Faculty Senate at the University of Virginia
March 27, 2007 – 3:00-5:00 p.m.
Harrison Institute Auditorium

SENATE WORK SESSION
Meeting Minutes

Kenneth Schwartz, Chair of the Faculty Senate, called the meeting to order.  Mr. Schwartz welcomed everyone to the meeting, and gave an overview of the agenda.

Mr. Schwartz said this is a time of much activity at the University.  The University is moving forward with a number of planning efforts, most notably the Commission on the Future of the University and its various committees.  Mr. Schwartz reported that the Faculty Senate was been asked by the administration to provide the names of faculty members to help in these initiatives.  Members of the Executive Council helped in this process.  He shared the most recent Commission statement and list of committee members.

In addition, there are presently several searches going on – including one for the Vice President and Provost, and one for the dean of Arts and Sciences.  Mr. Schwartz thanked faculty members for their willingness to engage in these searches, and for agreeing to serve on the numerous committees of the Senate and Commission.

The Senate is an active contributor to the University’s vision for the future.  Mr. Schwartz and the Executive Council will continue to focus on helping others understand how the Senate can engage in on-going University work.

Jennifer Harvey -- Chair, Committee on Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Welfare

In her opening remarks, Dr. Jennifer Harvey thanked the members of the Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Welfare for their contributions.  Dr. Harvey said the Committee has created a survey to assess the faculty’s level of satisfaction at the University and to identify specific concerns.  The survey has been finalized, and a letter of introduction and the survey will be sent to all faculty members.  The next step for the Committee will be to analyze the data.   Dr. Harvey took questions from the Senators.

Reginald Garrett – Chair, Academic Affairs Committee

The Provost has asked the Committee to review the issue of professorial titles at the University including possible distinctions among the “track” and “non-track” faculty ranks (formally referred to as the “general faculty”).  Few institutions other than the University of Virginia follow our current practice.  The Provost’s concern stems from reports from the American Association of University Professors that cite the non-tenure track cohort as the fastest growing faculty group among member institutions.   The American Association of University Professors fears that the action of universities in promoting the growth of this cohort changes the balance within institutions and may have the consequence of eroding the principle of tenure.  Accompanying the titling considerations are minority and gender issues, and spousal or partner appointments.

The Academic Affairs Committee is discussing alternative titles in an attempt to provide some clarity regarding the distinctions between tenure-track (tenured and not yet tenured academic track faculty) and non-track faculty, as well as the use of professorial titles awarded to administrative and other personnel.  The committee is recommending that any title changes should apply to new hires, with existing colleagues “grandfathered in”, Mr. Garrett said.

The Committee will move this issue forward to joint meetings with the Policy Committee for further examination, and will work toward creating a policy.   The Committee includes non-tenure track representation.  Mr. Garrett will have a further report on faculty titling issues at the May 2nd Faculty Senate meeting.

Marcia Day Childress – Chair, Faculty Senate Planning and Development Committee

Ms. Childress reported on the work of the Planning and Development Committee.  In preparation for future changes at the University, Gene Block and Robert Sweeney have hosted several dinner discussions with the Planning and Development Committee and other members of the University community.  The discussions focused on both broad and visionary goals of the University, Ms. Childress said. 

Ms. Childress gave an overview of the Commission on the Future of the University.  The main Commission consists of four smaller committees:

• Committee on Schools and the Medical Center
• Committee on Programmatic Initiatives
• Committee on Student and Faculty Life
• Committee on Funding and Other Resources

The Committees will resume work in the fall, with a goal of wrapping up the work in November.  The Planning and Development Committee is working on some of the proposals with the University Development Office, and will put together small working groups.  Ms. Childress took questions.

 Elizabeth Powell, Member of the Planning and Development Committee

Elizabeth Powell gave the Senators an overview of the topics that would form the focus of the Faculty Senate Work Session tables.  They include:

• Recommendations for the new Vice President and Provost – William Kehoe to report for table.
• Faculty Senate Review and Engagement in New Initiatives – Elizabeth Powell to report for table.
• Faculty/Donor Interactions and Relations – Marcia Day Childress to report for table.
• Core Needs – Faculty Resources – Janet Herman to report for table.
• Graduate Student Resources – Gweneth West to report for table.
• Current Programs – Deborah Johnson to report for table.
• 2007/2008 Priorities – Ricardo Padron to report for table.

Individual Table Discussions (Talking Points)

Table 1 – Recommendations for the New Vice President and Provost:

• Elevate position.
• Executive Vice President (#2 position).
• Through job description.
• Fit of Medical Center?
• Put academic division forward.
• Leadership position for faculty enhancement.

Table 2 – Faculty Senate Review and Engagement in New Initiatives:

• Faculty engagements in major new initiatives.
• New schools – donor driven? – one more thing without consideration for existing core needs.
• New School – faculty – SCHEV -- $ development project without guarantee.
• Faculty Senate role?  Academic integrity?
• Public Policy.
• How does a donor drive a new school?
• Think through impact on faculty.
• Brainstorming “overhead” and donor interest.
• “Big Ideas” need input from the Faculty Senate.
• Process for any endowment.
• Process for the Senate.
• Senators come to most meetings to hear the action taking place within the smaller committees.  A small faction is doing the work, but more now that before.
• Second school, Environmental = ideas that make the donor jump – without donors coming and development jumping.
• Traditional/conservative faculty – 1952 was the last new degrees, but without new schools.
• Role of Faculty – Academic integrity, collaborate intellectual integrity, sustainability.
• Small groups of Senators should meet to discuss issues coming up – smaller groups are more intimate.
• Is the University prepared for the 21st Century?
• Intellectual exchange – how many physical and dollar boundaries?
• Intersection of the physical and structural boundaries that invite interdisciplinary.
• What can the Faculty Senate do to engage faculty in the exploration of new ideas?
• Several models for the creation of a school – no matter where the idea comes from there should be a process to go through.
• Where would the Senate like to be involved when a “Big Idea” comes forward?
• The larger the initiative, the larger the base of support.
• Red flags – donors show up without any sense of the issues.  It is the Faculty Senate’s role to raise the red flags.
• Criteria – Academic affairs Committee – reprogram or new school.
• Potential conflict of interest – Impact on other programs.
• Ripple effect on structures already in place.

Table 3 – Faculty/Donor Interactions and Relations:

1. OBSERVATIONS:
   How faculty are now involved with donors varies enormously from school to school and, sometimes, from donor to donor. Some schools regularly have programs at which faculty meet and make presentations to potential donors, either on Grounds or on the road. In other schools, faculty don't seem to be encouraged to make direct contact with donors. In some instances, faculty may be tapped to meet with a donor quite late in the cultivation process, while at other times, faculty are seen as sources of donor names, as in clinical medicine, where faculty physicians are encouraged to help identify potential donors among their grateful patients. Arts & Sciences has recently created a faculty advisory board that will help determine which ideas and which faculty might be presented to potential donors.
   
   Faculty/donor relations are influenced by common perceptions and traditions about the fundraising scene at UVA. There are perceptions that, since UVA is a state school, basic needs are taken care of with state funding; even with the evaporation in recent years of much state funding, this view persists and is an expectation on the part of some potential donors. There's a perception that Development doesn't always use faculty well. There are perceptions that, ultimately, only the president determines and defines the fundraising needs and priorities. The decentralized nature of UVA's development operations--10 schools, 27 foundations--means that donors can be approached by many parts of the university; also, to persons who receive pitches from multiple schools or foundations, our fundraising may look disorganized, even chaotic. In contrast with many other schools, including Princeton, Stanford, Amherst, and Swarthmore, UVA has neither a culture or customs that promote high rates of annual alumni giving or unrestricted giving; therefore, if specific programmatic initiatives are more what UVA raises money around, it would seem that faculty should be involved in the donor cultivation/project "selling" process to a greater extent than they are now.

• SUGGESTIONS:
  Faculty/donor interaction should be a central and vital activity in the capital campaign. Faculty could perhaps be more effective in fundraising if we were seen and involved as PARTNERS in the development enterprise rather than as peripheral to the process or simply as SOURCES (of potential donors) or RESOURCES (people to do "show and tell" presentations to donors).
  
  Faculty could involve students--graduate and undergraduate--in interactions with donors. Students can put a "face" on a funding proposal and can quite naturally "sell" an idea or program. Also, exposure to graduate students can help donors who never did graduate degrees understand better the nature and needs of graduate education and graduate students.
  
  Faculty remain at the university for longer stretches of time than do most students. Our students have a strong sense of place and a powerful interest in staying connected with their UVA experience. How can we capitalize on and involve faculty in alumni affection for and loyalty to this PLACE?
  
  There should be a clearly defined mechanism for inviting and considering faculty ideas for development projects. This could be in place at multiple levels within the institution--e.g. in a school's dean's office, in a department. A school or department, for instance, could identify one faculty member whose service responsibility is to review and evaluate potential new fundraising initiatives and hold them up against the institution's stated purposes and priorities.
  
  Faculty--on their own or in partnership with students and successful alumni--could present brief programs of intellectual substance to alumni on Grounds or at alumni groups in other places. This could be a way of showcasing important and appealing faculty work while also providing visiting alumni with good academic material to reflect on while re-connecting with their alma mater.
  
  Bottom line is (1) faculty wish to be involved as meaningful partners in the development process, and (2) straightforward mechanisms should be put in place to facilitate this sort of generous faculty involvement in donor relations in the university's various academic and fundraising units.
  
  

Table 4 – Core Needs/Faculty Resources

• Infrastructure support for research.
• Support staff—faculty time for educational quality for student “junior” assistant chairs. 
• Change University policy; development potential excellent way to grow faculty maybe 100 at UVA; rotate every 3 years (Associate professor important transitional level).
• A variety of modes of chairs – recognition: teaching, service.
• Rigid overhead system with little returns to faculty.
• Chaired professors at all ranks.
• Faculty Development. 
• Travel money.
• Give every department selling naming rights.
• Development officer – translation into business teams – meet together with faculty.
• Faculty enhancement issues as part of the Capital Campaign.
• Statement for the donor – draft from the Faculty Senate, work with Development to promote.
• Donors may give for faculty salaries.
• Named departments/endowments (flexible funds).
• Diversity enhancement – living/benefits.
• Excellence in faculty opportunities/flexibility (junior hires).
• Bias against hiring at certain levels or fund raising for junior faculty.
• Flexibility for opportunity hires, agility.
• There is a growing gap between existing senior faculty and new hires.
• Associate professor can galvanize excitement in new hires, especially in the humanities (children, housing, and tuition benefits).

Table 5 – Graduate Student Resources
No notes.

Table 6 – Current Programs
Notes to follow.

Table 7 – 2007/2008 Priorities

• Governance/communication/transparency.
• Intellectual collaboration.
• Engagement in planning/development.
• Faculty welfare.
• Enhance communication between the faculty, the Faculty Senate, and the administration.
• Improve venues for collaboration (representation on committees, Board of Visitors).
• Open means of communication between faculty members – email list, polling mechanisms.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Submitted by Harold Burbach, Secretary of the Faculty Senate

________________________________________________________________

 FACULTY SENATE WORK SESSION – MARCH 29, 2007

LIST OF ATTENDEES:      

Kenneth Schwartz, Architecture
Daniel Willingham, Psychology
Reginald Garrett, Biology
Susan McKinnon, Anthropology
Jennifer Harvey, Radiology
Yoke San Reynolds, Vice President for Finance
James Hilton, Vice President & Chief Information Officer
Gweneth West, Drama
Houston Wood, Aerospace Engineering
William Kehoe, Commerce
Elizabeth Powell, Darden School
Nickolas Kuhn, Mathematics
Amy Bouton, Microbiology
Kevin Lee, Neuroscience
Edmund Kitch, Law
Chris Ghaemmaghami, Emergency Medicine
William Keene, Environmental Sciences
Frederic Damon, Anthropology
Teresa Culver, Civil Engineering
Alison Booth, English
Richard Steeves, School of Nursing
Julie Turner, Microbiology
Ricardo Padron, Spanish
Lynda Phillips-Madson, Medicine
Janet Herman, Environmental Sciences
Larry Phillips, Neurology
Howard Goodkin, Neurology
Ann Hamric, Nursing
Pamela Norris, Engineering
Carol Mershon, Politics
Thomas Guterbock, Sociology
Claire Lyu, French
Daniel Bluestone, Architecture
Joel Schectman, Medicine
Leonard Sandridge, Vice President
William Harvey, Vice President